How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

[Winman]

The fact is, almost no one really believes in Original Sin. Take any poll among Christians and ask them whether they believe God sends little children or babies who die to hell, and probably 95% or more will adamantly say NO. Only the most extreme hyper-Calvinist or perhaps Catholic might say yes.

Why?

Because no one truly believes little children and babies are worthy of death and being sent to hell. A person simply cannot accept this, everything in their conscience and heart revolts against such an idea.

The problem is, Augustine pushed this supreme error on the church 1500 years ago and it was forced on the people. It was not very safe to disagree with Mother Church.

Nevertheless, all reasonable people reject it, and so must invent ways for babies and children to be saved. So they teach that God shows some special grace to children, and that they can be saved without faith in Jesus.

One error leads to another. If folks simply knew that the scriptures do not teach Original Sin, the problem would disappear.

People are correct, God does not send little babies and children to hell, but it is because they are not sinners.

 

[DHK]

This is a bogus argument. The children of Israel rebelled when Moses went up on the mountain for 40 days. The people made the golden calf and partied. This is the incident being spoken of in Deu 1:39. Yes, it was a one time event, and the little children did not know between good and evil when this event took place, so God did not curse them. The adults who rebelled were cursed, they were not allowed to enter the Promised Land.

This changes nothing. It shows God does not punish little children who cannot understand between right and wrong. Some of these little children likely danced and gorged themselves with food with their parents, nevertheless they were not held accountable because they did not understand their actions before God.

Fixating on this one event does not help your argument at all, the principle is the same.

I didn't see this post. You probably posted it while I was composing another. You are very confused here. You need to study or even read some on this . I'll quote some of what you have written to show how confused you are.

You said:
The children of Israel rebelled when Moses went up on the mountain for 40 days. The people made the golden calf and partied. This is the incident being spoken of in Deu 1:39. Yes, it was a one time event, and the little children did not know between good and evil when this event took place, so God did not curse them.
This is absolutely false. This is not the event being referred to at all. Just look a couple verses earlier at 1:37, where Moses says, "God was angry with me." Why was God angry with Moses? Because he hit the rock instead of speaking to it. This event is near the end of their wanderings. They are about to cross into the Promised Land. He reminds them what happened the first time. 12 spies were sent in. Only two, Joshua and Caleb came back with a good report. Israel rebelled against them and the Lord. That generation would perish in the wilderness. Their children, (infants to 20) would enter into the Promised Land. This is who is being spoken of here. And this is who he is addressing. He is rehearsing history to this generation. 40 years ago they did not have the knowledge to make this decision that their parents made. Therefore they survived the wilderness wandering while their parents carcasses fell.

Hebrews 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

The rest of your post:
This changes nothing. It shows God does not punish little children who cannot understand between right and wrong. Some of these little children likely danced and gorged themselves with food with their parents, nevertheless they were not held accountable because they did not understand their actions before God.

--A total non sequitor, as Deu.1:39 doesn't refer to this event at all.
The verse refers to the knowledge that the 12 spies had and gave to Israel about the bounty of the Promised Land, the giants that lived there, etc., and the wrong decision they made about not going in at that time to conquer the land. God judged them and they were made to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. That is the event being referenced.

 

[DHK]

The fact is, almost no one really believes in Original Sin. Take any poll among Christians and ask them whether they believe God sends little children or babies who die to hell, and probably 95% or more will adamantly say NO. Only the most extreme hyper-Calvinist or perhaps Catholic might say yes.

Why?

Because no one truly believes little children and babies are worthy of death and being sent to hell. A person simply cannot accept this, everything in their conscience and heart revolts against such an idea.

The problem is, Augustine pushed this supreme error on the church 1500 years ago and it was forced on the people. It was not very safe to disagree with Mother Church.

Nevertheless, all reasonable people reject it, and so must invent ways for babies and children to be saved. So they teach that God shows some special grace to children, and that they can be saved without faith in Jesus.

One error leads to another. If folks simply knew that the scriptures do not teach Original Sin, the problem would disappear.

People are correct, God does not send little babies and children to hell, but it is because they are not sinners.

The majority of Americans don't believe in Hell, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, etc.
According to you that makes them right??

 

[Winman]

I didn't see this post. You probably posted it while I was composing another. You are very confused here. You need to study or even read some on this . I'll quote some of what you have written to show how confused you are.

You said:
The children of Israel rebelled when Moses went up on the mountain for 40 days. The people made the golden calf and partied. This is the incident being spoken of in Deu 1:39. Yes, it was a one time event, and the little children did not know between good and evil when this event took place, so God did not curse them.
This is absolutely false. This is not the event being referred to at all. Just look a couple verses earlier at 1:37, where Moses says, "God was angry with me." Why was God angry with Moses? Because he hit the rock instead of speaking to it. This event is near the end of their wanderings. They are about to cross into the Promised Land. He reminds them what happened the first time. 12 spies were sent in. Only two, Joshua and Caleb came back with a good report. Israel rebelled against them and the Lord. That generation would perish in the wilderness. Their children, (infants to 20) would enter into the Promised Land. This is who is being spoken of here. And this is who he is addressing. He is rehearsing history to this generation. 40 years ago they did not have the knowledge to make this decision that their parents made. Therefore they survived the wilderness wandering while their parents carcasses fell.

Hebrews 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

The rest of your post:
This changes nothing. It shows God does not punish little children who cannot understand between right and wrong. Some of these little children likely danced and gorged themselves with food with their parents, nevertheless they were not held accountable because they did not understand their actions before God.

--A total non sequitor, as Deu.1:39 doesn't refer to this event at all.
The verse refers to the knowledge that the 12 spies had and gave to Israel about the bounty of the Promised Land, the giants that lived there, etc., and the wrong decision they made about not going in at that time to conquer the land. God judged them and they were made to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. That is the event being referenced.

You are correct about the incident where God said they would not enter the Promised Land, but that changes nothing.

The fact is, in Deu 1:39 God tells us precisely why he is allowing the children to go in, because they did not have knowledge between good and evil in that day.

This fixation on one single day and event changes nothing. The reason God did not punish the children is because they did not know between good and evil and therefore could not be held accountable.

This principle is also supported by other scripture, such as Jonah 4:11 which I showed. God said he SHOULD spare Nineveh. Why? Because there were 120,000 little children there who could not discern between their right hand and left hand and much cattle. These little children were just as innocent as cattle that cannot understand right from wrong.

So, I was mistaken on the incident being spoken of, but that changes nothing, the principle is exactly the same.

 

[Winman]

The majority of Americans don't believe in Hell, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, etc.
According to you that makes them right??

I didn't say poll Americans, I said poll Christians, and I would bet the vast majority will say they do not believe God sends babies and little children to hell. Why? Because deep in their heart, folks know that babies are not really guilty of sin.

So, they invent all sorts of unscriptural reasons for babies and children to be saved, they say they KNOW God is merciful, especially to children, and believe he shows them special grace. It is not necessary that they believe on Jesus.

One error leads to another. Scripture clearly says Jacob and Esau had done no evil when they were in their mother's womb. Therefore, if they had died in their mother's womb as literally billions of children have in the course of history, they would be SINLESS.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Do the scriptures speak of sinless people? Yes, Jesus spoke of 99 just persons who never went astray and which need no repentance. He also told us about the elder brother of the prodigal son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time.

Folks seem to believe God would be offended by sinless people, but heaven has literally MILLIONS of angels who have never sinned, and God is not threatened or offended by them whatsoever.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Agree with Winman. God is not an unjust God. Yes children are born into Adam's sin nature. If they had not reached accountability, or had opportunity at an age they could understand, God will not punish them. Besides that all sin has been paid for.

 

[DHK]

I simply said that at times Gill (and many other Calvinists) are inconsistent. And this commentary shows that. He seems very hesitant and reluctant to actually say these little children deserved destruction. He hints that they were not guilty of actual sin, and also hints the reason is because they lack the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, In Jonah 4:11 they lacked any discernible moral knowledge. They were one of the most cruel nations on the earth at that time and would not hesitate to perform cruel acts. Their depravity was well known. It is no wonder that Jonah wanted them destroyed. They were one of Israel's greatest enemies. With such depraved minds "they didn't know their right hand from their left" in both moral and righteous matters.

Well, you know, that is a good point. The fact is, the vast majority of commentaries out there were written by Calvinists. I do not personally own any commentaries, so I go online. And what do you see there? Probably 90% of the commentaries were written by Calvinists.

I try to answer without a commentary. If I don't have a good answer I will look in one. If I don't have a suitable one on my computer I have a library of about 2,000.

And to their credit, this is why the Calvinists have had so much influence in the church, even non-Calvinist Baptists. Probably every Baptist pastor out there has Gill's, and Barnes's, and Matthew Henry's Commentaries. It is no wonder that Calvinism has infiltrated and influenced even non-Calvinist denominations.

I don't find an excuse to rely on anyone's point of view for my theology.
The question is: What does the Bible teach?

No, I read the scripture and study for myself. When Jonah says these persons cannot discern between their right hand and left hand, I KNEW that was speaking of very small children. And Deu 1:39 is the same, it speaks of "little ones".

"You know?"
How do you come to that conclusion when it contradicts the context?
"Knowing their right hand from their left" is probably an idiom, just like we have many such idioms in English. In fact that is an idiom that is sometimes used in English isn't it--not knowing the right from the left.

Irrelevant, the principle is the same, God does not charge or punish little children who cannot understand right from wrong for sin.

Nowhere have you proved that little children are the subject.
I said:
It is a passage referring to one event in history and not the events before that time which they did have knowledge of.
This is concerning Deu.1:39.
The subject is the event where the sent the spies into the Promised Land.
Of that event, at that time in history, that generation had no knowledge or were not privy to making the decision that their parents made.

Wow, first you imply I am an atheist, now I worship Gill. You are a moderator here, and you are knowingly doing what you know is forbidden on this forum.

All throughout that post you keep quoting Gill as your authority. He was more of your authority than the Bible was. You really put him on a pedestal in that post. Go back and read it.

The scriptures clearly show little children are not born knowing good from evil, that takes time.

The Scriptures don't teach that; YOU teach that!
BTW, does Gill teach that?

Every child is different, perhaps one child has great discretion when they are six or seven years old, another child must be a few years older. But no very little child four or five years old truly understands right from wrong and is therefore not held accountable for sin.

So God has not created all people equal??
Why haven't any innocent children grown up to be perfect without sin, if they are born without a sin nature? Surely, there must have been even one that should have grown up to be perfect and without sin. But no. "All have sinned."

Isa 7:16

For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

A prophecy. Irrelevant. The key words in it are "to refuse the evil".
It doesn't say anything about "knowing the evil."

Babies are not born knowing good from evil as you falsely teach.

I believe what the Bible teaches.
In Psalm 51:5 you teach from that passage that David was illegitimately born and that instead of David repenting from his sin, David is blaming his mother for his sin. How terrible! And all to get around the doctrine of depravity. A man will go to any extreme won't he?

 

[DHK]

I didn't say poll Americans, I said poll Christians, and I would bet the vast majority will say they do not believe God sends babies and little children to hell. Why?

No one here says God sends infants to hell. Why are you suggesting that?
In fact I have already gone on record that that is not the case. So now you are making slanderous accusations. You need to repent of this.

So, they invent all sorts of unscriptural reasons for babies and children to be saved, they say they KNOW God is merciful, especially to children, and believe he shows them special grace. It is not necessary that they believe on Jesus.

Asked and answered. You simply don't want to believe the answer. You are also derailing the thread.

One error leads to another. Scripture clearly says Jacob and Esau had done no evil when they were in their mother's womb. Therefore, if they had died in their mother's womb as literally billions of children have in the course of history, they would be SINLESS.

Asked and answered--a multitude of times.
another red herring; another attempt at derailing the thread.
It is against the rules:

[SIZE=-1]9. Post in the right forum. Keep posts on-topic, relative to the forum it's posted in.

[/SIZE]
--Start another thread if you want to discuss the salvation of children.

Luk 15:7

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Do the scriptures speak of sinless people? Yes, Jesus spoke of 99 just persons who never went astray and which need no repentance. He also told us about the elder brother of the prodigal son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time.

Folks seem to believe God would be offended by sinless people, but heaven has literally MILLIONS of angels who have never sinned, and God is not threatened or offended by them whatsoever.

No they don't. If you don't know the meaning of these passages you have some serious study to do.
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

 

[DHK]

Agree with Winman. God is not an unjust God. Yes children are born into Adam's sin nature. If they had not reached accountability, or had opportunity at an age they could understand, God will not punish them. Besides that all sin has been paid for.

Winman has made some false accusations and false assumptions.
Almost all of us believe that infants will go to heaven. He falsely posted that we don't believe that. He was wrong in doing so.

 

[Winman]

Baloney again, even Calvinists admit Jonah 4:11 is speaking of little children. I have already showed you Gill, here are others.

Should I not spare? - literally "have pity" and so "spare." God waives for the time the fact of the repentance of Nineveh, and speaks of those on whom man must have pity, those who never had any share in its guilt, the 120,000 children of Nineveh, "I who, in the weakness of infancy, knew not which hand, "the right" or "the left," is the stronger and fitter for every use." He who would have spared Sodom "for ten's sake," might well be thought to spare Nineveh for the 120,000's sake, in whom the inborn corruption had not developed into the malice of willful sin. If these 120,000 were the children under three years old, they were 15 (as is calculated) of the whole population of Nineveh. If of the 600,000 of Nineveh all were guilty, who by reason of age could be, above 15 were innocent of actual sin.

I do not understand Barnes' math here, but he believed this verse spoke of little children who did not know their right hand from their left hand. Note he said they do not share in the cities's guilt.

Clarke was not a Calvinist, yet he understood this to be children who have not offended.

And besides, these persons are young, and have not offended, (for they knew not the difference between their right hand and their left), and should not I feel more pity for those innocents than thou dost for the fine flowering plant which is withered in a night, being itself exceedingly short-lived?

John Calvin, I am pretty sure he was a Calvinist;

for many infants were there who had not, by their own transgressions, deserved such a destruction.

See, even John Calvin did not believe infants deserved destruction. This is absolutely inconsistent with Calvinism as I said earlier.

JF & B, Calvinists

11. that cannot discern between their right hand and their left—children under three of four years old (De 1:39). Six score thousand of these, allowing them to be a fifth of the whole, would give a total population of six hundred thousand.

Note that Jamieson-Fausset and Brown also believed Deu 1:39 spoke of children under 3 or 4 years of age.

 

[Winman]

Winman has made some false accusations and false assumptions.
Almost all of us believe that infants will go to heaven. He falsely posted that we don't believe that. He was wrong in doing so.

I never said you believed babies and children go to hell, I said I would bet you believe they go to heaven. You are not a careful reader.

Why don't you believe babies and little children go to hell? You believe they are born wicked sinners don't you? So why wouldn't they go to hell like all the other wicked sinners who do not trust Jesus? A baby who dies in the womb cannot trust Jesus.

Explain yourself.

 

[DHK]

Baloney again, even Calvinists admit Jonah 4:11 is speaking of little children. I have already showed you Gill, here are others.

I do not understand Barne's math here, but he believed this verse spoke of little children who did not know their right hand from their left hand. Note he said they do not share in the cities's guilt.

Clarke was not a Calvinist, yet he understood this to be children;

John Calvin, I am pretty sure he was a Calvinist;

See, even John Calvin did not believe infants deserved destruction. This is absolutely inconsistent with Calvinism as I said earlier.

JF & B, Calvinists

Note that Jamieson-Fausset and Brown also believed Deu 1:39 spoke of children under 3 or 4 years of age.

I have given you a reasonable answer. You cannot refute it. It appears you simply want to join hands with the Calvinists. Why not become one?

 

[Winman]

I have given you a reasonable answer. You cannot refute it. It appears you simply want to join hands with the Calvinists. Why not become one?

I have clearly shown you that many commentators, Calvinist or not, believe Deu 1:39 and Jon 4:11 are speaking of very little children who do not understand between good and evil. My interpretation of these scriptures is absolutely orthodox.

I have shown you that many Calvinists are inconsistent and believe infants are not actual sinners.

But folks like Iconoclast teach that Paul taught the word "sinned" in both Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 teaches that all men "actually" sinned with Adam in the garden. He has said this many times. Hank believes this as well concerning Romans 5:12.

 

[Winman]

And why should I become a Calvinist when Calvinists do not believe their own doctrine? They talk out of both sides of their mouth, they say all men actually sinned with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, but then elsewhere they say little children are not guilty of actual sin and do not deserve destruction. You also believe all children are born as wicked sinners, yet you believe God should send them to heaven when they die.

Jam 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Why would I want to be a mixed-up, double minded person like you and these Calvinists?

 

[plain_n_simple]

Winman has made some false accusations and false assumptions.
Almost all of us believe that infants will go to heaven. He falsely posted that we don't believe that. He was wrong in doing so.

Ok sorry big D, I jumped without reading and assumed.

 

[Winman]

Ok sorry big D, I jumped without reading and assumed.

Why are you apologizing to DHK? I never claimed he did not believe children go to heaven. I in fact said I would bet that at least 95% of all Christians believe all children do go to heaven, perhaps a few hyper-Calvinists or Catholics might be the exception. Some Catholics believe a baby that dies before it can be baptized goes to hell, but I do not believe many Catholics believe this any more.

It is DHK that falsely accused me, he is the one who owes an apology.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman;

But folks like Iconoclast teach that Paul taught the word "sinned" in both Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 teaches that all men "actually" sinned with Adam in the garden. He has said this many times. Hank believes this as well concerning Romans 5:12.

The word teaches it.....all sinned.....at one exact point in time, a completed action in time past...... What time was that?...yes the fall:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Why are you apologizing to DHK? I never claimed he did not believe children go to heaven. I in fact said I would bet that at least 95% of all Christians believe all children do go to heaven, perhaps a few hyper-Calvinists or Catholics might be the exception. Some Catholics believe a baby that dies before it can be baptized goes to hell, but I do not believe many Catholics believe this any more.

It is DHK that falsely accused me, he is the one who owes an apology.

You are talking out of two sides of your mouth Winman. Shameful!
Here is your exact quote:

The fact is, almost no one really believes in Original Sin. Take any poll among Christians and ask them whether they believe God sends little children or babies who die to hell, and probably 95% or more will adamantly say NO. Only the most extreme hyper-Calvinist or perhaps Catholic might say yes.

Here are the facts:
1. You say:
Winman's Fact: "Almost no one believes in Original Sin. "

The truth: All Catholic's, All Calvinists, All Reformed, and many others believe in Original Sin.
--I live in a nation that is over 50% Catholic. Most believe in Original Sin, not almost no one.
Your misrepresentation is ungodly.

2. Winman's statement: Take any poll among Christians and ask them whether they believe God sends little children or babies who die to hell, and probably 95% or more will adamantly say NO.

The truth: You put this ungodly statement as an accusation against the Calvinists and others on this board that we believe infants who die will go to hell. That is the inference. I have plainly told you that Calvinists and others like myself don't believe that and have given you Scripture to back it up. So why the veiled accusation??

Your post is one of the most shameful deceitful posts on this board.
Why do you post like this?

 

[DHK]

And why should I become a Calvinist when Calvinists do not believe their own doctrine? They talk out of both sides of their mouth, they say all men actually sinned with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, but then elsewhere they say little children are not guilty of actual sin and do not deserve destruction. You also believe all children are born as wicked sinners, yet you believe God should send them to heaven when they die.

Jam 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Why would I want to be a mixed-up, double minded person like you and these Calvinists?

You cannot refute me Winman. You can't give me an intelligent answer. The only answer I get from you are your quotations from Calvinists. You don't even quote Scripture anymore, just Calvinist commentators. Now, don't go putting them down. Just "fess up and join them. If you can't think for yourself and have to depend on them rather than the Bible just join them.

 

[DHK]

I have shown you that many Calvinists are inconsistent and believe infants are not actual sinners.

I tire of your continual misrepresentation. Show me one Calvinist who denies the depravity of man; just one, Winman, just one.